THESIS 

Presented  to  the  Faculty  of  the  Department  of  Philosophy  of  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania,  in  Partial  Fulfilment  of  the 
Requirements  for  the  Degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 


ROLAND  GRUBB  KENT 


Press  of 

The  New  Era  Printing  Company, 
Lancaster,  Pa 


4 *JJ  . 6 


The  person  charging  this  material  is  re- 
sponsible for  its  return  to  the  library  from 
fvhich  it  was  withdrawn  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below. 

Theft,  mutilation,  and  underlining  of  books  are  reasons 
for  disciplinary  action  and  may  result  in  dismissal  from 
the  University. 

To  renew  call  Telephone  Center,  333-8400 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS  LIBRARY  AT  URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 


A HISTORY  OF  THESSALY 


FROM  THE 


EARLIEST  HISTORICAL  TIMES 


TO  THE 


ACCESSION  OF  PHILIP  V.  OF  MACEDONIA 


PRINTED  IN  PART 


THESIS 

Presented  to  the  Faculty  of  the  Department  of  Philosophy  of  the 
University  of  Pennsylvania,  in  Partial  Fulfilment  of  the 
Requirements  for  the  Degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 


by 

ROLAND  GRUBB  KENT 

m 


Press  or 

Ihe  New  Era  printing  Company, 
Lancaster,  Pa. 

1904 


PREFACE. 


The  history  of  Thessaly  may  at  present  be  found  stowed  away 
in  the  larger  and  more  detailed  histories  of  Greece  ; monographs 
on  particular  features  or  events  exist  in  the  periodicals,  and  some 
meager  encyclopaedia  articles  are  also  at  hand ; but  in  such  form 
the  material  is  too  inaccessible  to  give  more  than  a general  vague 
idea.  To  present  this  therefore  in  connected  form  is  the  purpose 
of  this  dissertation  ; and  if  a little  light  is  occasionally  thrown 
upon  some  point  formerly  obscure,  the  writer  will  be  more  than 
satisfied. 

In  doing  this  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  work  up  the  subject 
chiefly  from  ancient  sources  ; hence  the  references  to  the  works  of 
modern  writers  may  seem  disproportionately  few.  This  should 
not  be  taken  to  mean  however  that  recent  literature  on  the  sub- 
ject has  been  neglected  ; for  that  would  be  untrue.  Among  many 
helpful  works  and  shorter  articles  the  writer  wishes  to  acknowledge 
especial  indebtedness  to  Busolt’s  “ Griechische  Geschichte,” 
Schafer’s  “ Demosthenes  und  seine  Zeit”  and  Droysen’s  “ Ge- 
schichte  des  Hellenism  us,”  which  have  served  as  correctives  to 
many  an  error.  And  he  will  farther  feel  truly  grateful  to  any 
reader,  who,  detecting  the  errors  that  doubtless  still  remain,  will 
take  the  trouble  to  inform  him  of  them. 

In  quoting  authorities,  so  far  as  possible  the  comma  is  used  to 
separate  references  to  the  same  work  or  to  the  same  author,  and 
the  semicolon  to  separate  references  to  different  authors.  The 
exigencies  of  the  case  have  in  a few  instances  caused  variations 
from  this  general  practice.  For  convenience,  spurious  works  (as 
for  example  many  of  the  orations  of  Demosthenes)  are  in  the 
references  assigned  without  comment  to  the  author  with  whose 
name  they  are  commonly  though  wrongly  connected. 

A confession  of  faith  seems  necessary  nowadays  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  the  spelling  of  proper  names.  The  plan  here  adopted  is 


IV 


PREFACE. 


to  give  them  in  their  Latin  forms ; but  for  various  reasons  the 
following  modifications  of  this  principle  are  made  : (1)  The  final 
v of  names  ending  in  cou  is  retained,  as  Menon.  (2)  For  distinc- 
tion from  e and  t,  et  is  transliterated  by  e or  i,  as  Chaeron6a, 
Sperchius ; and  to  avoid  confusion  with  final  oc,  final  ou c is 
expressed  by  us,  as  Rhamnus.  (3)  Heracles,  Hecabe  and  similar 
forms  are  retained,  where  the  Latin  varies  decidedly  from  the 
Greek.  (4)  A few  names  such  as  Aristotle,  Plato  and  Pindar, 
and  of  course  Athens,  Corinth  and  Thebes,  are  retained  in  the 
forms  familiar  in  English. 

For  constant  assistance  and  encouragement  and  helpful  sugges- 
tion, the  writer  desires  to  express  his  heartfelt  thanks  to  Professor 
W.  A.  Lamberton,  of  this  University. 

Roland  G.  Kent. 

University  of  Pennsylvania, 

Philadelphia,  Pa.,  March  1,  1903. 


On  account  of  the  length  of  this  dissertation,  only  Chapter  V 
and  Appendixes  I and  II  have  been  printed.  As  these  portions 
contain  nearly  all  of  the  investigations  giving  new  results,  per^ 
mission  to  leave  the  remainder  unprinted  has  been  granted  by  the 
Executive  Committee  of  the  Department  of  Philosophy. 

January  28,  1904. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I.  Geography  of  Thessaly. 

§ 1.  General  features. 

§ 2.  Description  of  Thessaly  proper. 

§ 3.  Description  of  the  Sperchius  valley. 

§ 4.  The  Islands. 

CHAPTER  II.  Political  Institutions. 

§ 1.  The  penestae. 

§ 2.  The  Aleuadae. 

§ 3.  The  Scopadae. 

§ 4.  Genealogical  table  of  the  Aleuads  and  Scopads. 

§ 5.  The  tetrarchies. 

§ 6.  The  K oiv6v  or  federal  league. 

§ 7.  The  Pylaean  or  Delphic  Amphictyony. 

§ 8.  Character  of  the  Thessalians. 

CHAPTER  III.  The  Sixth  Century. 

§ 1.  Conflict  with  the  Phocians  at  Thermopylae. 

§ 2.  The  First  Sacred  War,  595-585. 

§ 3.  The  Battle  of  Ceressus. 

§ 4.  Alliance  with  Athens,  560-550. 

§ 5.  The  Phocian  Wars. 

§ 6.  Aid  sent  to  Hippias,  511  or  510. 

§ 7.  Simonides  in  Thessaly  ; destruction  of  the  Scopadae. 

§ 8.  Pindar  and  Anacreon  in  Thessaly. 

§ 9.  Simus,  Aleuas,  Thorax. 

CHAPTER  IV.  The  Persian  Wars. 

§ 1.  Attitude  of  the  Thessalians  toward  the  Persians,  480. 

§ 2.  The  Greeks  at  Tempe. 

§ 3.  Visit  of  Xerxes  to  Tempe. 

§ 4.  The  medizing  Greeks. 

§ 5.  Advance  of  the  Greeks  to  Thermopylae  and  Artemisium. 
§ 6.  Wreck  of  the  Persian  fleet  off  Pelium. 


v 


VI 


CONTENTS. 


§ 7.  March  of  the  Persians  through  Thessaly. 

§ 8.  Battles  of  Thermopylae  and  Artemisium. 

§ 9.  The  Thessalians  lead  the  Persians  into  Phocis. 

§10.  The  Persians  winter  in  Thessaly,  480-79. 

§ 11.  Activity  of  the  Aleuads  in  the  Persian  interests,  480-79. 

§ 12.  Retreat  of  the  Persians  through  Thessaly,  479. 

CHAPTER  V.  From  The  Persian  Wars  to  Lycophron  of 

Pherae. 

§ 1.  Punitive  campaign  of  Leotychidas  into  Thessaly,  477-6. 

§ 2.  Menon  of  Pharsalus  aids  the  Athenians  against  Eion,  476. 

§ 3.  Seizure  of  Scyrus  by  the  Athenians,  474-2. 

§ 4.  Alliance  of  Athens,  Argos  and  Thessaly,  462. 

§ 5.  Battle  of  Tanagra,  457. 

§ 6.  Campaign  of  Myronides  into  Thessaly,  454  or  453. 

§ 7.  Abortive  conference  of  the  Greeks  in  relation  to  the  shrines  de- 
stroyed by  the  Persians. 

§ 8.  The  athletes,  Acnonius’  sons. 

§ 9.  The  Thessalians  send  aid  to  Athens  in  431. 

§ 10.  Election  of  Daochus  and  withdrawal  of  Thessaly  from  the  Athe- 
nian alliance,  431. 

§11.  Alarm  at  Sitalces’  invasion  of  Macedonia,  428. 

§ 12.  Founding  of  Heraclea  Trachinia,  426. 

§ 13.  March  of  Brasidas  through  Thessaly,  424. 

§ 14.  Malians  at  the  battle  of  Delium,  424. 

§ 15.  Rhamphias’  repulse  at  Cierium,  422/1. 

§16.  Troubles  at  Heraclea,  420/19,  413/2,  410. 

§ 17.  Miscellaneous  events  at  the  time  of  the  Peloponnesian  war. 

CHAPTER  VI.  The  Tyrants  of  Pherae. 

§ 1.  Family  tree  of  the  Pheraeans  ; rise  of  Lycophron. 

§ 2.  Herippidas  punishes  the  Trachinians  at  Heraclea,  399. 

§ 3.  Medius  of  Larissa  takes  Pharsalus,  395. 

§ 4.  The  Boeotians  take  Heraclea,  395. 

§ 5.  March  of  Agesilaus  through  Thessaly,  394. 

§ 6.  Miscellaneous  events,  393-381. 

§ 7.  Relationship  of  Jason  and  Lycophron. 

§ 8.  Jason’s  character  ; his  allies. 

§ 9.  Events  in  northern  Euboea,  377. 

§ 10.  Polydamas  of  Pharsalus. 

§ 11.  Alliance  of  Jason  and  Polydamas  ; Jason  elected  tagus,  375. 

§ 12.  Alliance  of  Jason  and  Athens,  373. 

§ 13.  Jason  at  Leuctra,  371. 


CONTENTS. 


Vll 


§ 14.  Jason’s  second  marriage. 

§ 15.  Jason’s  attempt  to  bribe  Epaminondas. 

§16.  Jason’s  destruction  of  Heraclea,  371. 

§ 17.  Murder  of  Jason,  370. 

§ 18.  Polydorus  and  Polyphron,  370-369. 

§ 19.  Accession  of  Alexander,  369  ; bis  cruelty. 

§ 20.  Alexander  of  Macedonia  called  in  against  Alexander  of  Pherae, 
369. 

§ 21.  Pelopidas  called  in  against  Alexander  of  Pherae,  369. 

§22.  Seizure  of  Pelopidas  by  Alexander,  368. 

§ 23.  Pelopidas  in  captivity  at  Pherae. 

§ 24.  Alexander  secures  the  alliance  of  the  Athenians  and  beats  off  the 
Thebans,  368. 

§ 25.  Destruction  of  Scotussa  by  Alexander,  367. 

§26.  Epaminondas  effects  Pelopidas’  release,  367. 

§ 27.  Death  of  Pelopidas  at  Cynoscephalae,  364. 

§ 28.  Defeat  of  Alexander  by  the  Thebans,  364. 

§ 29.  Alexander  and  Athens  in  conflict  on  Peparethus,  362. 

§ 30.  Alliance  of  Athens  and  the  Thessalian  league,  362/1. 

§ 31.  Descent  of  Alexander  upon  the  Piraeus,  362  or  361. 

§ 32.  Murder  of  Alexander  by  Thebe  and  her  brothers,  359. 

§ 33.  Tisiphonus  becomes  tagus,  359  ; Philip  of  Macedonia  is  called  in 
against  him,  357. 

§ 34.  Isocrates  invited  to  live  at  Pherae. 

§ 35.  Opening  of  the  Second  Sacred  War,  357-353. 

§ 36.  Philip  defeats  the  Phocians  in  Thessaly  and  expels  Lycophron  and 
Pitholaus  from  Pherae,  352. 

§ 37.  Later  fortunes  of  the  Pheraean  tyrants. 

CHAPTER  VII.  Philip  and  Alexander. 

§ 1.  Philip’s  policy  in  Thessaly. 

§ 2.  His  occupation  of  Pagasae,  etc. , 352. 

§ 3.  Philip  takes  Pharcadon,  352  or  349. 

§ 4.  Athenian  embassies  to  Philip,  346. 

§ 5.  End  of  the  Second  Sacred  War,  346. 

§ 6.  Measures  of  Philip  in  Thessaly,  344. 

§ 7.  Trouble  between  Athens  and  Philip  over  Halonnesus,  344-340. 

§ 8.  Philip  establishes  tetrarchs  in  Thessaly,  342. 

§ 9.  Eurylochus  takes  reinforcements  to  the  tyrants  of  Eretria,  342. 

§ 10.  Athenian  invasions  into  Thessaly. 

§ 11.  Philip  has  trouble  with  certain  Aleuads. 

§ 12.  The  Third  Sacred  War  and  the  battle  of  Chaeronea,  338. 

§ 13.  Alexander. 


vm 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  VIII.  Thessaly  under  the  Successors  of 
Alexander. 

§ 1.  Lamian  War  : revolt  of  the  Greeks,  323. 

§ 2.  Antipater  besieged  in  Lamia,  323-322. 

§ 3.  Defeat  of  Leonnatus  in  Thessaly,  322. 

§ 4.  Defeat  of  the  Greeks  at  Crannon,  322  ; results. 

§ 5.  Defeat  of  the  Thessalians  by  Polysperchon,  321. 

§ 6.  The  rulers  of  Thessaly,  323-196. 

§ 7.  Political  status  of  Thessaly  under  the  Macedonians. 

§ 8.  Polysperchon  and  Cassander,  319-315. 

§ 9.  Hostilities  between  Cassander  and  Demetrius,  302. 

§ 10.  Demetrius  becomes  ruler  of  Thessaly,  294. 

§ 11.  Demetrius  founds  Demetrias. 

§ 12.  Pyrrhus  seizes  but  soon  loses  Thessaly,  287. 

§ 13.  Invasion  of  the  Gauls  under  Brennus,  279. 

§ 14.  Pyrrhus’  dedication  to  Itonian  Athena,  273. 

§ 15.  Antigonus  Gonatas  and  Demetrius  II. 

§ 16.  Growth  of  the  power  of  the  Aetolian  league  in  Thessaly,  280-40. 
§ 17.  Defeat  of  the  Achaean  league  at  Phylace,  239. 

§ 18.  Revolt  of  the  Thessalians,  229. 

§ 19.  The  Cleomenian  War,  225-222. 

§ 20.  The  Aetolians  in  Thessaly,  240-220. 

APPENDIX  I.  The  Ruling  Families  of  Pharsalus. 

§ 1.  The  government  of  Pharsalus. 

§ 2.  The  Echecratids. 

§ 3.  The  Daochids. 

§ 4.  The  Menonids. 

APPENDIX  II.  The  Relations  between  Thessaly  and  Athens. 
§ 1.  Mistaken  view  of  Busolt. 

§ 2.  Alliances  before  the  Peloponnesian  War. 

§ 3.  Relations  during  the  Peloponnesian  War. 

§ 4.  Relations  at  this  time,  that  show  nothing. 

§ 5.  Relations  in  the  fourth  century. 

§ 6.  Consideration  of  Thuc.  IV  78  2 sq. 

APPENDIX  III.  The  Highest  Thessalian  Magistracy. 
APPENDIX  IY.  The  Expedition  of  Cyrus. 
APPENDIX  V.  Alexander’s  Conquest  of  Asia. 

§ 1.  The  conquest  of  Asia. 

§ 2.  Medius. 

§ 3.  Thorax. 

APPENDIX  YI.  Cineas,  Minister  of  Pyrrhus. 


CHAPTER  Y. 


From  the  Persian  Wars  to  Lycophron  of  Pherae. 

§1.  At  the  beginning  of  the  Persian  War  the  Greeks  had 
vowed  to  dedicate  to  the  god  at  Delphi  a tenth  of  the  possessions 
of  all  those  Greeks  who  under  no  compulsion  submitted  to  the 
barbarian.1  Therefore  an  army  commanded  by  Leotychidas  king 
of  Sparta  was  after  the  close  of  the  war  sent  to  Thessaly  to  punish 
the  Aleuadae  for  their  attitude.  It  was  transported  by  sea  to 
Pagasae,  where  the  fleet  remained  while  the  army  invaded  the  in- 
terior of  the  country.  By  this  means  the  difficult  passage  of  the 
mountains  of  Phthiotis  was  avoided.  The  Thessalian  generals 
Aristomedes  and  Angelus  were  defeated  in  battle,  and  all  promised 
a speedy  success  for  the  Lacedaemonians,  when  the  Aleuads 
shrewdly  bribed  Leotychidas,  and  he  withdrew  to  the  coast. 
Even  before  he  had  left  the  country  his  dishonesty  became  evident, 
for  he  was  found  to  be  in  possession  of  wealth  for  which  he  could 
not  account.  He  was  taken  back  to  Sparta,  where  he  was  con- 
demned to  death,  a sentence  whose  execution  he  escaped  by  fleeing 
for  refuge  to  the  temple  of  Athena  Alea  at  Tegea.2 

At  the  spring  Pylaea,  presumably  of  the  same  year,  the  Lace- 
daemonians desired  to  exclude  from  the  Amphictyony  the  nations 
that  did  not  take  up  arms  against  the  invaders  ; the  issue  was 
raised  especially  in  regard  to  the  Thessalians,  the  Thebans  and  the 
Argives.  But  the  Athenians,  led  by  Themistocles,  their  hiero- 
mnemon  at  the  time,  opposed  the  move,  for  they  saw  that  action 
would  then  be  confined  to  a few  cities  among  which  Sparta  would 
easily  take  the  leading  position,  while  Athens  would  take  a minor 
place.  The  Athenian  influence  was  strong  enough  to  defeat  the 
proposition.3 

§1.  1.  Herod.  YII 132. 

§ 1.  2.  Herod.  VI  72  ; Paus.  Ill  7 9 sq. ; Plut.  Them.  20,  Mor.  859  D. 

§1.  3.  Plut.  Them.  20. 


1 


2 


HISTORY  OF  THESSALY. 


The  date  of  these  events  is  uncertain.  Grote 4 places  them  in 
478  or  477,  as  the  punishment  of  the  Aleuads  would  be  only  the 
natural  continuation  of  the  war  against  the  Persian  ; but  there 
are  certain  difficulties  with  this  dating.  Leotychidas  ascended 
the  throne  in  491,  and  ruled  twenty-two  years,5  according  to 
Diodorus.6  This  would  put  his  exile,  and  consequently  the 
Thessalian  campaign,  in  470/69.  Further,  Archidamus,  his 
grandson  and  successor,  who  died  between  June  428  and  the 
spring  of  426,  is  said  to  have  reigned  forty-two  years,7  which 
agrees  with  the  previous  statement.  On  the  other  hand,  Themis- 
tocles  is  said  by  Plutarch  to  have  had  the  intention  of  setting  on 
fire  the  Greek  fleet  as  it  lay  at  Pagasae,  to  insure  the  naval  su- 
premacy of  Athens.8  In  this  passage  the  fleet  is  represented  as 
stationed  at  Pagasae  during  the  winter  after  the  battle  of  Plataea, 
that  is,  of  479/8.  At  any  rate,  the  campaign  and  the  proposed 
exclusion  of  the  Thessalians  from  the  Amphictyony  cannot  be 
later  than  471/0,  when  Themistocles  fled  from  Athens.  Again, 
Diodorus 9 gives  the  death  of  Leotychidas  and  the  accession  of 
Archidamus  as  occurring  in  the  archonship  of  Phaedon,  476/5. 
It  would  seem  then  that  Diodorus  has  confused  the  dates  of 
Leotychidas/  exile  and  of  his  death,  and  has  counted  the  years  of 
his  life  in  exile  as  part  of  his  reign,  as  was  done  by  him  also  in 
the  case  of  Plistoanax.10  Allowing  for  these  corrections,  the  fleet 
would  winter  at  Pagasae  477/6,  the  campaign  taking  place  in  the 
autumn  of  477  or  early  spring  of  476  ; the  expulsion  of  the  medi- 
zers  was  considered  at  the  spring  Pylaea  of  476,  and  Leotychidas 
was  tried  in  the  summer  of  476.  Yet,  after  all,  it  is  a strong 
temptation  to  follow  Plutarch’s  account  and  place  all  these  events 
in  the  year  immediately  following  the  battle  of  Plataea. 

Though  this  Thessalian  campaign  failed  in  its  attempt  to  pun- 
ish the  Aleuads,  as  well  as  in  the  probable  further  motive, 

§ 1.  4.  V2  259  n.  1 ; cf.  Busolt  III 2 1 p.  83  n.  1. 

§ 1.  5.  Busolt  II 2 573  n.  5. 

§ 1.  6.  XI  48  2. 

§ 1.  7.  Thuc.  Ill  1 1,  89  1 ; Diod.  XI  48  2. 

§ 1.  8.  Pint.  Them.  20  ; Busolt  III2 1 p.  85  n.  2. 

§ 1.  9.  XI  48  2. 

§ 1.  10.  Diod.  XIII  75  1. 


ATHENIAN  SEIZURE  OF  SCYRUS. 


3 


namely  the  strengthening  of  Lacedaemonian  influence  in  northern 
Greece,  it  is  clear  that  the  Aleuadae  preserved  little  more  than  the 
shadow  of  their  former  might.  From  this  time  on  no  Aleuad  of 
Larissa  is  heard  of  as  tagus ; and  some  twenty  years  later  the 
Pharsalian  branch  of  the  family  is  expelled  from  power.11  The 
result  must  have  been  a great  increase  of  power  on  the  part  of  the 
anti- Aleuad  element  and  a great  loss  of  prestige  on  the  part  of  the 
Aleuads.  The  office  of  tagus,  being  an  extraordinary  one,  was  ap- 
parently allowed  to  lapse  and  was  revived  only  in  the  time  of 
Lycophron. 

§ 2.  When  Cimon  was  besieging  the  Persians  in  Eion,  476, 
Menon,  a wealthy  Pharsalian,  at  the  head  of  300  of  his  penestae 
whom  he  had  armed  at  his  own  expense,  joined  him  and  aided 
him  in  the  prosecution  of  the  siege.  He  also  contributed  twelve 
silver  talents  toward  the  expense  of  the  campaign.  In  return  for 
his  services  he  was  by  decree  of  the  Athenians  presented  with  the 
citizenship.1 

§ 3.  Not  long  after  this,  Cimon,  in  command  of  the  Greek 
fleet,  stormed  and  took  Scyrus,  which  was  inhabited  by  Pelasgians 
and  Dolopes.  These  people  were  rough  and  piratical,  and  caused 
great  trouble  to  the  Thessalian  merchants,  not  receiving  trades- 
men, but  plundering  all  those  who  anchored  near  Ctesium.  At 
last  some  merchants  held  in  bonds  escaped  and  going  to  the  Am- 
phictyons  demanded  that  they  exact  the  accustomed  penalty  of 
Scyrus.  This  was  in  the  form  of  a money  payment,  but  the  mul- 
titude refused  to  pay  and  bade  those  actually  guilty  of  this  partic- 
ular act  of  piracy  pay  the  sum.  To  avoid  this  the  latter  sent 
letters  to  Cimon,  then  at  Ei'on,  offering  to  deliver  the  city  to  him 
if  he  should  come  with  the  fleet.  This  is  the  story  of  Plutarch  ; 
but  it  seems  more  probable  that  Cimon’s  main  motive  in  taking 

§ 1.  11.  Thuc.  I 111  1. 

§ 2.  1.  Demos.  XIII  23,  XXIII  199.  While  these  passages  might  refer  to 
the  operations  against  Brasidas  in  424  (in  which  case  Menon  would  be  identical 
with  the  leader  of  the  Pharsalians  who  as  allies  came  to  Athens  in  431 ; Thuc. 
II  22  3),  still  at  that  time  the  influence  of  Daochus  (cf.  pp.  9 sq.  infra)  would 
probably  have  prevented  such  assistance  ; and  both  the  language  and  the  context 
of  the  passages  cited  from  Demosthenes  point  to  the  earlier  date. 


4 


HISTORY  OF  THESSALY. 


the  island  was  to  seek  the  bones  of  Theseus,  who  according  to  the 
legend  had  there  been  treacherously  done  to  death  by  Lycomedes. 
In  476,  in  the  archonship  of  Phaedon,  an  oracle  had  directed  the 
Athenians  to  bring  to  Athens  the  bones  of  Theseus  and  to  pay  him 
fitting  honor  as  to  a hero.  The  Dolopes  refused  to  show  Cimon 
where  Theseus  lay,  or  quite  possibly  denied  any  knowledge  of  his 
resting  place.  While  seeking  the  tomb,  the  story  goes,  Cimon 
noticed  an  eagle  screaming  and  tearing  at  a hillock  ; and  on  ex- 
cavating there  he  found  the  remains  of  a huge  body  and  beside  it 
a spear  and  a sword  of  bronze.  He  brought  them  back  to  Athens 
in  his  own  ship,  and  they  were  received  there  with  great  honors. 
The  Scyrians  were  enslaved  and  the  island  became  permanently 
an  Athenian  possession,  with  the  land  divided  among  cleruchs.1 

The  date  of  the  seizure  of  Scyrus  is  in  doubt.  It  may  be  placed 
in  the  year  47  5,  immediately  after  the  capture  of  Eion  by  Cimon, 
as  is  done  by  Wilamowitz,2  or  in  474  to  472,  as  is  done  by  Busolt.8 
The  determination  is  not  of  vital  consequence,  as  the  event  is  not 
connected  with  other  events. 

§ 4.  The  weakening  of  the  power  of  the  Aleuads  by  the  cam- 
paign of  Leotychidas  did  not  prevent  the  election  of  Echecratidas 
of  Pharsalus  as  tagus.1  He  felt  himself  somewhat  insecure  in  his 
position,  for  many  remembered  gratefully  the  weakening  of  the 
power  of  the  Aleuad  line  by  the  Lacedaemonians,  and  when  the 
relations  between  Athens  and  Sparta  became  strained,  he  did  not 
let  the  opportunity  slip  to  strengthen  himself  by  an  alliance  with 
the  former  city.  This  alliance  was  brought  about  as  follows  : 

The  Messenians  revolted  from  Sparta  in  464,  and  fortified 
themselves  on  Mt.  Ithome.  After  several  years  of  fruitless  siege 
the  Lacedaemonians  invited  assistance  from  various  cities,  among 
them  Athens,  which  sent  a large  force  under  Cimon.  Soon,  how- 
ever, they  began  to  fear  that  the  Athenians  might  be  persuaded 
over  to  the  side  of  the  Messenians,  and  dismissed  them  on  the 

§ 3.  1.  Thuc.  I 98  2 ; Diod.  XI  60  2 ; Plut.  Thes.  36,  Cim.  8 ; Paus.  I 17  6, 
III  3 7. 

§ 3.  2.  Aristoteles  und  Athen  I 146. 

§ 3.  3.  Ill2 1 p.  105  n.  2,  where  arguments  are  given. 

§ 4.  1.  Thuc.  I 111  1. 


BATTLE  OF  TANAGKA. 


5 


ground  that  their  aid  was  not  needed.  The  Athenians  returned 
home,  but  the  insult  rankled  in  their  hearts  and  they  formed  an 
alliance  with  the  Argives,  who  were  old  rivals  of  the  Lacedae- 
monians. The  two  cities  then  joined  in  an  alliance  on  the  same 
terms  with  the  Thessalians.2  The  hatred  felt  against  Sparta  by 
the  Aleuads  of  Larissa  and  of  Pharsalus  made  them  in  their 
capacity  of  leaders  of  the  Thessalian  state  fall  in  zealously,  while 
the  party  opposed  to  them  felt  less  readiness  to  join  the  enemies 
of  those  who  had  attempted  to  destroy  the  tyrants. 

§ 5.  Shortly  after  this,  the  Lacedaemonians  made  an  expedition 
into  Phocis  to  punish  that  nation  for  the  invasion  of  the  district 
of  Doris  and  for  the  taking  of  one  of  the  Dorian  cities.  The 
Athenians  saw  their  opportunity  to  revenge  themselves  at  the  close 
of  the  war  by  cutting  off  the  return  of  the  Lacedaemonian  force. 
With  an  army  of  14000  men,  in  which  were  1000  Argives  and 
a body  of  Thessalian  horsemen,  they  occupied  the  passes  over 
Mt.  Geranea.  The  Lacedaemonians  learned  this,  and  did  not 
attempt  to  cross,  but  marched  on  to  Tanagra  and  there  encamped, 
awaiting  a favorable  opportunity  to  pass  through  toward  home. 
The  Athenians  and  their  allies  then  advanced  into  Boeotia,  and  a 
severe  battle  took  place,  in  the  midst  of  which  the  Thessalians 
deserted  to  the  enemy.  The  Athenians  and  the  Argives  fought 
on  bravely  none  the  less,  but  though  both  sides  suffered  severe 
losses  the  outcome  was  a decisive  victory  for  the  Lacedaemonians.1 
This  campaign  took  place  in  the  late  summer  of  457. 

Diodorus’  account 2 — less  trustworthy,  of  course  — differs  ma- 
terially from  that  just  given,  which  is  the  story  of  Thucydides. 
According  to  him  the  battle  was  indecisive,  and  was  closed  only 
by  the  coming  of  darkness.  The  two  armies  then  encamped 
opposite  each  other,  and  the  Athenians  arranged  to  draw  provis- 
ions from  Attica.  One  night  the  Thessalians,  intending  to  take 
the  Athenian  camp  by  surprise  in  the  darkness,  fell  by  chance 
upon  a convoy  of  supplies.  Those  in  charge  of  the  supplies  mis- 
took the  Thessalians  for  their  friends,  and  so  were  at  a great  dis- 

§ 4.  2.  Thuc.  1 102  ; Paus.  I 29  8 sq. 

§ 5.  1.  Thuc.  I 107  sq.  ; Herod.  IX  35  ; Paus.  I 29  9 ; Diod.  XI  79  4-6. 

§5.  2.  XI  80. 


6 


HISTORY  OF  THESSALY. 


advantage,  being  thrown  into  confusion  while  the  enemy  remained 
in  perfect  order.  The  Athenians  in  the  camp  however  learned  of 
the  attack  and  came  in  haste,  and  drove  off  the  Thessalians  with 
heavy  loss.  Then  the  Lacedaemonians  came  to  the  aid  of  the 
Thessalians,  and  a long  and  bloody  battle  ensued,  lasting  all  day, 
and  closing  only  at  the  approach  of  night.  The  losses  on  both 
sides  were  heavy,  but  neither  party  had  a decided  advantage. 
Worn  out  by  the  conflict,  the  generals  conferred,  and  concluded  a 
truce  of  four  months,  which  was  virtually  a victory  for  the 
Lacedaemonians,  as  it  allowed  them  to  reach  home  unhindered. 

§ 6.  A few  years  later,  either  454  or  453, 1 an  Athenian  army 
under  command  of  Myronides  marched  into  Thessaly;  on  the 
way  it  was  joined  by  the  Boeotians  and  the  Phocians,2  then  their 
allies.  In  undertaking  this  campaign  the  Athenians  were  moved 
by  a desire  for  vengeance  upon  the  Thessalians  for  their  treachery 
at  Tanagra,  and  also  by  the  wish  to  restore  to  his  native  city 
Orestes,  son  of  the  tagus  Echecratidas,  their  recent  ally.  The 
bearing  of  these  events  upon  each  other  is  probably  that  while 
the  Thessalian  detachment  was  serving  in  the  Athenian  army 
before  the  battle  of  Tanagra,  Echecratidas  died,  and  his  son 
Orestes  was  refused  the  chief  place  in  the  city.  Acnonius  son  of 
Aparus,  an  anti-Aleuad  leader,  now  stood  at  the  head  of  the 
state.  Orestes  was  the  leader  of  the  faction  aJlied  with  Athens  ; 
hence  Acnonius  was  inimical  to  Athens  and  inclined  toward 
Sparta.  This  change  in  the  rule  and  in  the  political  relations  at 
home  caused  the  desertion  of  the  Thessalian  troops  to  the  Lacedae- 
monians at  Tanagra.  A short  time  later  Acnonius  felt  himself 
strong  enough  to  banish  Orestes  from  his  native  city ; the  exile  at 
once  sought  aid  from  his  father’s  ally,  Athens. 

Acnonius  son  of  Aparus  appears,  it  is  true,  only  in  an  inscrip- 
tion found  at  Delphi 3 ; but  there  are  strong  grounds  for  believing 
him  the  leader  of  the  party  that  expelled  Orestes.  He  was 
tetrarch  of  the  Thessalians,  according  to  the  inscription ; and  as 
he  stood  in  the  direct  line  four  generations  before  the  Daochus 

§ 6.  1.  Busolt  III2  1 p.  333  and  note. 

§ 6.  2.  Cf.  CIA.  IV  p.  8 #22b. 

§6.  3.  Homolle  in  BCH.  XXI  (1897)  592-598. 


THE  TETRARCHIES. 


7 


who  was  Philip’s  ambassador  to  Thebes  in  33 8, 4 and  was  grand- 
father of  the  Daochus  who  ruled  all  Thessaly  from  431  to  404,  as 
we  shall  see  later,  he  must  be  placed  at  least  as  early  as  455, 
while  he  cannot  be  placed  earlier,  since  Echecratidas  was  then 
tagus. 

Myronides  easily  penetrated  as  far  as  Pharsalus,  but  the  city 
was  closed  to  him,  and  he  was  obliged  to  invest  it.  By  so  doing 
he  made  no  headway,  for  his  army  was  master  of  only  the  ground 
in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  camp,  and  any  detachments  sent 
out  were  at  once  driven  back  by  the  Thessalian  cavalry.  De- 
spairing of  success,  he  soon  raised  the  siege  and  returned  to 
Athens  with  neither  end  of  the  invasion  accomplished.5  Orestes 
of  necessity  returned  with  him,  and  from  that  time  on  no  member 
of  his  family  held  power  at  Pharsalus.  In  fact  the  Aleuads  in  all 
their  branches  now  withdraw  into  the  background.  The  Scopadae 
had  almost  perished  in  a great  calamity  about  500  B.  C.;  the 
Larissaean  Aleuads  were  much  weakened  by  the  campaign  of 
Leotychidas ; the  Pharsalian  line  was  in  exile.  The  Pelinnaean 
and  Itonian  branches  never  held  much  prominence.  And  while 
the  Aleuadae  of  Larissa  reappear  as  military  commanders,  as  op- 
ponents of  the  Pheraean  tyrants,  and  as  minions  of  the  Macedonian 
kings,  they  are  never  again  heard  of  as  “ kings  ” or  tagi  of 
Thessaly. 

§ 7.  Some  years  after  the  expedition  of  Myronides,  Pericles 
summoned  a conference  of  all  the  Greeks  to  confer  about  the 
shrines  destroyed  by  the  Persians.  Among  those  invited  to  attend 
it  were  the  Thessalians,  the  Phthiot  Achaeans,  the  Oetaeans  and 
the  Malians ; but  the  opposition  of  the  Lacedaemonians  brought 
the  project  to  naught.1 

§ 8.  A long  period  ensues  of  which  we  hear  nothing.  We  may 
think  of  this  time,  lasting  down  to  the  opening  of  the  Pelopon- 
nesian war,  as  one  of  comparative  peace  and  quiet.  The  military 
tetrads  developed  into  the  tetrarchies,  governments  civil  rather 
than  military  in  their  nature,  at  whose  head  stood  tetrarchs. 

§ 6.  4.  Plut.  Demos.  18. 

§ 6.  5.  Thuc.  I 111  1 ; Diod.  XI  83  3 sq. 

§ 7.  1.  Plut.  Pericl.  17. 


8 


HISTORY  OF  THESSALY. 


These  were  elected  by  a duly  assembled  congress  of  the  district ; 
the  length  of  the  term  of  office  is  not  known.  The  only  tetrarch 
of  whom  we  hear  by  name  in  the  times  preceding  the  Pelopon- 
nesian war  is  the  Acnonius  already  mentioned. 

Three  sons  of  Acnonius  are  known,  Hagias,  Telemachus  and 
Agelaus.  All  these  were  famous  athletes  : Hagias  won  five  vic- 
tories at  Nemea,  three  (or  five)  at  Delphi,  and  five  at  the  Isthmus  ; 
Telemachus  won  the  same  number  of  victories,  and  killed  a 
Tyrrhenian  in  a wrestling  match  ; Agelaus  won  the  boys’  stadium 
race  at  Delphi.1 

§ 9.  The  Aleuadae  gradually  recovered  some  measure  of  their 
former  power  at  Larissa,  and  while  they  were  still  rent  by  fac- 
tions, they  had  a much  firmer  hold  at  the  outbreak  of  the  Pelopon- 
nesian war  than  they  had  had  twenty-five  to  forty  years  earlier. 
Proof  of  this  consists  in  the  renewal  of  the  old  alliance  of  the 
Athenians  and  the  Thessalians  in  431.  A force  of  cavalry  was 
sent  to  help  in  the  defense  of  Athens  against  the  Lacedaemonians 
when  the  latter  were  about  to  invade  Attica.1  This  force  consisted 
of  detachments  from  Larissa,  Pharsalus,  Pagasae,2  Crannon, 
Piresiae,  Gyrton  and  Pherae,  each  under  its  own  leader.  Of  the 
Larissaeans  indeed  there  were  two  leaders,  Polymedes  and  Aris- 
tonous,  one  from  each  faction  of  the  Aleuadae,  then  nearly  balanced 
in  power  in  that  city ; and  the  Pharsalian  leader  was  Menon, 

§8.  1.  Homolle  in  BCH.  XXI  (1897)  592-598,  XXIII  (1899)  421-485; 
Preuner  ein  delphischer  Weihgeschenk. 

§ 9.  1.  Thuc.  II  22  3. 

§9.  2.  Thuc.  II  22  3.  Codd.  ACEFM  here  read  Uapacioi , B[G]  Uepdcioi. 
The  word  may  have  crept  in  under  the  influence  of  the  preceding  QapodTuoi  and 
of  the  second  word  after  it,  neipaaioi.  Accordingly  some  editors  bracket  the 
word,  others  read  UapaTuoi  (a  people  of  Malis,  who  are  clearly  not  the  ones 
meant  — Thuc.  Ill  92  2),  and  Stahl  reads  Uayacaioi.  The  second  word  after  it 
is  II npacLoi.  II eipaoia  in  Magnesia,  mentioned  by  Steph.  Byz.  s.  v.,  would  give 
this  form  of  the  adjective,  but  the  place  is  unimportant  and  no  town  of  that 
rocky  peninsula  would  have  cavalry  to  send.  Most  editors  read  Uvpacioi ; but 
Apoll.  Rhod.  I 37  mentions  a place  II Etpemai  (the  Homeric  ’A arepiov)  in  central 
Thessaly,  which  occurs  also  in  several  other  authors  (Steph.  Byz.  s.  v.  Asterium  ; 
Horn.  II.  II  735  ; Strabo  438  sq.  ; Orph.  Arg.  164  ; Liv.  XXXII  13  9 Iresiae). 
This  place  would  more  probably  send  a detachment  than  would  Pyrasus,  the 
seaport  of  Phthiotid  Thebes,  which  itself  did  not  take  part  in  the  campaign. 


DAOCHUS. 


9 


who,  as  his  name  does  not  occur  in  the  Daochid  line  (thus  we  shall 
term  the  family  of  Acnonius,  from  its  most  prominent  members), 
seems  to  belong  to  a family  of  an  opposing  faction.  This  indicates 
that  the  Daochid  line  — hostile  to  the  Athenians  on  account  of 
their  alliance  with  the  Echecratids  — was  for  the  time  displaced 
by  the  family  of  which  Menon  was  a member,  which  had  gradu- 
ally grown  into  prominence  since  the  expulsion  of  Orestes.  We 
should  therefore  expect  Menon  to  be  friendly  to  the  Athenians, 
and  such  we  actually  find  him. 

Soon  after  the  entrance  of  the  Lacedaemonians  into  Attica  there 
occurred  near  Phrygii  a severe  skirmish  between  a company  of 
Athenian  horsemen  and  the  Thessalians  on  the  one  side  and  the 
Boeotian  cavalry  on  the  other.  The  latter  had  the  worse  of  it 
until  some  hoplites  came  to  their  aid,  when  they  turned  the  Athe- 
nians and  Thessalians  to  flight  and  inflicted  some  loss  upon  them. 
The  vanquished  succeeded  however  in  recovering  the  dead  on  the 
same  day  without  the  necessity  of  resorting  to  a truce,  and  the 
Peloponnesians  erected  a trophy  on  the  next  day.  The  tomb  of 
the  Thessalians  who  fell  in  this  battle  was  still  to  be  seen  in  the 
time  of  Pausanias  beside  the  road  leading  to  the  Academy.3 

§ 10.  With  this  one  incident  closes  the  participation  of  the 
Thessalians  in  the  main  current  of  the  Peloponnesian  war.  Re- 
markable as  this  is,  it  is  to  be  explained  by  an  inscription  found 
at  Delphi : 1 

“ I am  Daochus,  son  of  Hagias  ; my  fatherland  is  Pharsalus  ; 
I was  archon  of  all  Thessaly,  not  through  force  but  by  law,  for 
twenty-seven  years  ; and  Thessaly  teemed  with  a bounteous  and 
fruitful  peace  and  wealth.” 

Daochus,  legal  ruler  of  all  Thessaly,  was  grandfather  of  the 
Daochus  who  was  Philip’s  partisan  in  Thessaly  355  to  338.2  His 
archonship  must  therefore  fall  in  about  the  period  of  the  Pelopon- 
nesian war.  Further,  his  twenty-seven  years  of  power  cannot 
have  ended  later  than  404,  when  Lycophron  attempted  to  render 

§ 9.  3.  Thuc.  II  22  2 sq.  ; Paus.  I 29  6. 

§10.  1.  Homolle  in  BCH.  XXI  (1897)  592-598. 

§ 10.  2.  Plut.  Demos.  18  ; Demos.  XVIII  295  ; Polyb.  XVII 14  4 ; Harpoc. 
s.  v.  Daochus  ; CIGIns.  Ill  251. 


30 


HISTORY  OF  THESSALY. 


himself  tyrant  of  Thessaly,3  for  Bacchus’  rule  was  one  of  peace 
and  prosperity,  so  the  epigram  tells  us ; and  as  no  mention  of 
Daochus  occurs  in  the  account  of  the  campaign  of  431,  we  are 
forced  to  believe  that  he  was  then  not  yet  archon.  Between  431 
and  404  is  a period  of  just  twenty-seven  years ; and  we  may 
fairly  suppose  that  in  a council  of  the  Thessalian  league,  held  in 
the  year  431,  Daochus  was  elected  archon,  and  that  to  him,  as  he 
represented  the  anti- Athenian  party,  is  due  the  change  in  the 
attitude  of  Thessaly  during  the  war.  We  must  acknowledge  that 
his  influence  was  not  exerted  in  favor  of  Sparta ; but  at  the  same 
time  the  division  in  the  feelings  of  the  Thessalians  and  a probable 
desire  on  his  own  part  to  promote  the  material  prosperity  of  his 
country  afford  a reasonable  explanation  of  his  neutral  position. 
In  the  matter  of  Brasidas’  and  Ehamphias’  marches4  through 
Thessaly,  the  opposition  offered  to  the  Lacedaemonians  was  doubt- 
less due  to  the  recent  founding  of  Heraclea,  upon  the  borders  of 
Thessaly,  which  was  regarded  as  an  aggression  on  the  part  of  the 
Lacedaemonians.  That  however  there  resided  at  Pharsalus  in  424 
a power  upon  which  Brasidas  relied  for  permission  to  cross  the 
country,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  he  sent  ahead  a messenger  to 
that  city  to  ask  free  passage  for  himself  and  his  army.5  This 
power  must  have  been  Daochus. 

§ 11.  In  the  early  months  of  428  the  Thracian  Sitalces  took  the 
field  against  the  Macedonian  Perdiccas,  and  advanced  into  Mace- 
donia and  Chalcidice.  Perdiccas  was  able  to  offer  no  effective  re- 
sistance, and  the  northern  Greeks  began  to  fear  that  he  might  pro- 
ceed also  into  their  territories.  Accordingly  the  Thessalians,  the 
Phthiot  Achseans,  the  Magnetes  and  the  other  tribes  dependent 
upon  the  Thessalians,  including  those  who  dwelt  in  the  Sperchius 
valley,  mustered  and  remained  under  arms  for  some  weeks,  until 
as  the  Athenians  failed  to  send  him  their  promised  support  Sital- 
ces felt  constrained  to  make  peace  with  Perdiccas.  Upon  the  dis- 
persal of  his  army  homeward,  the  Thessalians  also  resumed  the 
pursuits  of  peace,  as  there  no  longer  existed  occasion  for  fear. 1 

§ 10.  3.  Xen.  Hell.  II  3 4. 

§ 10.  4.  Thuc.  IV  78,  V 13. 

§ 10.  5.  Thuc.  IV  78  1. 

§ 11.  1.  Thuc.  II  101 ; Diod.  XII  51. 


FOUNDING  OF  HER  ACL®  A TRACHINIA. 


11 


§ 12.  In  the  early  part  of  the  summer  of  426  there  was  a series 
of  earthquakes,  which  did  immense  damage  in  the  neighborhood 
of  the  Malian  gulf.  Most  of  the  buildings  of  Lamia,  Phalara, 
Echinus  and  Larissa  Cremaste,  of  Trachis,  and  of  the  coast  towns 
of  Locris  and  Boeotia  were  thrown  down,  and  much  loss  of  life 
occurred.  A great  wave  swept  the  coasts,  reaching  as  far  as 
Peparethus,  by  which  time  it  had  spent  its  force ; the  city  of  that 
name  however  had  its  city  wall,  the  Prytaneum  and  some  other 
buildings  shaken  down.  The  Sperchius  was  turned  from  its  chan- 
nel into  the  roads  and  fields,  and  the  Boagrius  was  changed  into 
another  ravine ; and  the  hot  springs  of  Thermopylae  and  those  at 
Aedepsus  in  Euboea  ceased  to  flow  for  three  days. 1 

There  had  been  for  years  a state  of  war  between  the  Trachin- 
ians  and  the  Oetaeans,  and  the  former  had  lost  the  greater  part  of 
their  citizens ; with  the  new  disaster  of  the  earthquake  they  were 
entirely  helpless.  For  aid  they  looked  first  toward  Athens,  but 
they  feared  that  that  city  might  not  be  faithful  to  them  in  time  of 
need.  Therefore  they  joined  with  the  people  of  Doris,  who  also 
were  much  wasted  by  war  with  the  Oetaeans,  in  an  embassy  to  the 
Lacedaemonians.  Tisamenus  was  the  spokesman  of  the  Trachin- 
ians ; and  on  hearing  his  plea  the  Lacedaemonians  were  much 
inclined  to  grant  the  request  for  help,  both  on  the  sentimental 
grounds  that  Doris  was  the  mother-city  of  all  Dorians  and  that 
Heracles  their  ancestor  had  settled  at  Trachis,  and  on  the  practi- 
cal ground  that  a strong  colony  there  would  serve  as  a base  for  a 
naval  force  to  act  against  Euboea,  and  as  a station  on  the  way  to 
Thrace.  The  god  at  Delphi  was  consulted  and  proved  favorable  ; 
and  at  his  bidding  they  sent  as  colonists  both  Lacedaemonians  and 
perioeci,  and  invited  all  other  Greeks  except  the  Ionians,  Achaeans 
and  a few  others  to  join  them.  Such  was  the  confidence  in  the 
Lacedaemonians  that  volunteers  assembled  in  great  numbers ; and 
the  colonists,  led  by  the  Lacedaemonians  Leon,  Alcidas  and  Dam- 
agon,  amounted  in  all  to  10000,  of  whom  4000  were  from  Laco- 
nia and  the  rest  of  the  Peloponnesus,  and  6000  from  other  regions. 
The  new  city  was  founded  twenty  stades  from  the  shore,  six  stades 

§ 12.  1.  Thuc.  Ill  89  ; Strabo  60. 


12 


HISTORY  OF  THESSALY. 


from  the  former  Trachis  and  forty  stades  from  Thermopylae,  and 
was  named  c HpdxXeta  T pay  evict.  or  iv  Tpaytvc. 2 The  building  of 
dockyards  was  begun,  and  the  pass  at  Thermopylae  was  fortified 
and  kept  under  guard.  The  Athenian  fear  of  a descent  upon 
Euboea  was  not  however  realized,  for  the  various  Thessalian 
nations,  dreading  so  powerful  a neighbor  and  regarding  it  as  a 
trespasser  upon  their  land,  gathered  in  force  and  made  a constant 
war  upon  the  new  city,  which  greatly  weakened  it.  The  misman- 
agement of  the  Lacedaemonian  officials  also  had  a bad  effect  upon 
the  city,  and  many  colonists  deserted ; so  that  in  its  relations  to 
its  neighbors  it  was  kept  on  the  defensive.  It  was  nevertheless 
still  strong  enough  in  the  autumn  to  contribute  500  of  the  3000 
hoplites  sent  by  the  allies  of  the  Lacedaemonians,  under  Lacedae- 
monian commanders,  to  aid  the  Aetolians  in  their  resistance  to  the 
invasion  of  the  Athenian  Demosthenes  and  the  Acarnanians. 3 

§ 13.  In  the  summer  of  424  Brasidas  was  sent  out  with  1700 
hoplites  from  Sparta  to  Chalcidice.  His  march  to  Heraclea 
Trachinia  was  through  friendly  country ; but  thence  onward  he 
had  to  cross  Thessaly,  which  while  taking  no  part  in  the  war  had 
a faction  friendly  to  the  Athenians,  as  we  have  seen ; and  though 
the  archon  Daochus  was  friendly  to  Sparta,  the  motives  of  such 
a large  force  in  crossing  the  country  would  arouse  suspicion, 
the  more  so  from  the  recent  establishment  of  Heraclea  on  the 
borders  of  the  country.  Brasidas,  realizing  this,  halted  at  Her- 
aclea and  sent  ahead  a messenger  to  Pharsalus  to  ask  free  passage 
for  himself  and  his  army.  To  give  reply  there  came  to  Melitea 
in  Phthiotis  Panaerus,  Dorus,  Hippolochidas,  Tarylaus  and  Stro- 
phacus,  a proxenus  of  the  Chalcidians.  Brasidas  advanced  under 
the  guidance  of  certain  Thessalians,  among  them  Niconidas  of 
Larissa,  a friend  of  the  Macedonian  Perdiccas  (whom  Brasidas 
wished  to  join).  On  reaching  Melitea  he  was  informed  that  the 
Thessalians  had  decided  to  refuse  him  passage  ; but  none  the  less 
he  kept  on,  diregarding  the  natural  difficulties  of  the  country,  and 
reached  the  Enipeus  river  without  resistance.  Here  however  a 

§ 12.  2.  For  the  history  of  this  city  see  R.  Weil,  die  Oetaea,  in  Hermes  VII 
(1873)  380-392. 

§ 12.  3.  Thuc.  Ill  92  sq.,  100,  V 51 ; Diod.  XII  59  3-5  ; Strabo  428  sq. 


RHAMPHIAS  IN  THESSALY. 


13 


force  of  Thessalians  blocked  his  march,  and  the  guides  declared 
their  disinclination  and  inability  to  lead  him  farther  against  the 
will  of  the  natives.  Brasidas  now  explained  to  his  opponents 
that  he  came  as  a friend  to  the  Thessalians,  and  as  an  enemy  not 
to  them,  but  to  the  Athenians  only  ; that  the  Thessalians  and  the 
Lacedaemonians  were  at  peace  and  he  saw  no  reason  why  they 
should  not  use  each  other’s  land  peacefully ; and  that  he  would 
not  proceed  against  their  will,  for  he  was  unable  to  do  so,  but  he 
did  not  think  it  right  for  them  to  check  him.  On  hearing  this 
the  Thessalians  dispersed ; and  Brasidas,  at  the  bidding  of  the 
guides,  advanced  rapidly  and  that  night  encamped  beside  the 
Apidanus ; on  the  following  day  he  reached  Phacium,  and  on  the 
next  entered  Perrhaebia,  before  any  further  resistance  could 
be  concerted.  The  Perrhaebians  gave  him  guidance  to  Dium, 
the  border  city  of  the  kingdom  of  Perdiccas,  at  the  foot  of 
Olympus.1 

§ 14.  In  the  winter  after  this,  424/3,  the  Boeotians  obtained 
javelin-throwers  and  slingers  from  the  region  of  the  Malian  gulf 
to  aid  them  and  their  allies  against  the  Athenians  at  Delium. 
These  troops  were  present  in  the  conflict  resulting  in  the  Athenian 
defeat  and  withdrawal.1 

§ 15.  At  the  time  of  the  battle  of  Amphipolis  (422),  in  which 
Brasidas  fell,  reinforcements  consisting  of  900  hoplites  commanded 
by  the  Spartans  Bhamphias,  Autocharidas  and  Epicydidas  were 
on  their  way  to  him.  At  HeraclOa  they  delayed  to  try  to  straighten 
out  the  affairs  of  that  troubled  city,  and  at  this  time  occurred  the 
battle  of  Amphipolis.  As  winter  came  on,  Bhamphias  proceeded 
into  Thessaly  as  far  as  Cierium 1 ; but  he  met  with  stout  resistance, 
and  as  news  came  that  Brasidas  was  dead  and  that  the  Athenians 
had  withdrawn  from  Chalcidice,  there  was  no  longer  need  of  his 
force,  both  sides  being  weary  of  war  and  inclined  toward  peace, 

§13.  1.  Thuc.  IV  78,  79  1. 

§ 14.  1.  Thuc.  IV  100  1. 

§ 15.  1.  The  name  is  given  in  Thuc.  V 13  1 as  Pierium  ; but  coins  with  the 
legend  KIEPIEIS2N  have  been  found  in  this  district,  which  makes  it  clear  that 
in  the  local  dialect  the  name  is  properly  Cierium.  Muret  in  BCH.V  (1881) 
288. 


14 


HISTORY  OF  THESSALY. 


and  he  returned  home  without  essaying  a farther  northward 
march.2 

§ 16.  The  enmity  between  the  Heracleots  and  their  neighbors, 
seemingly  for  a time  quiescent,  now  broke  out  afresh,  in  the  early 
winter  of  420/19.  The  Aenianes,  Dolopes,  Malians  and  some 
other  Thessalians  assailed  the  city  and  in  battle  defeated  the  de- 
fenders with  considerable  loss,  including  that  of  the  Lacedaemo- 
nian leader,  Xenagoras  the  Cnidian.  Besieged  within  the  city, 
the  survivors  sent  to  the  Boeotians  for  aid.  The  Thebans,  fearing 
that  the  Athenians  might  seize  the  place  while  the  Lacedaemonians 
were  busy  in  the  Peloponnesus,  willingly  responded  with  1000 
hoplites.  With  the  assistance  of  these  the  besiegers  were  driven 
off.  The  Thebans  then  took  charge  of  the  city  and  expelled  the 
Lacedaemonian  governor  Hegesippidas  for  mismanagement.  By 
this  course,  though  it  was  taken  in  the  interests  of  the  city,  the 
Thebans  incurred  the  anger  of  the  Lacedaemonians,  and  as  when 
we  next  hear  of  Heraclda  it  is  in  Lacedaemonian  control,  it  is  to 
be  presumed  that  it  was  given  up  to  them  by  the  Boeotians  after 
more  or  less  of  argument  and  possibly  of  conflict.1 

Some  years  later  (413/2)  the  Lacedaemonian  king  Agis  made  a 
winter  campaign  from  Decelea  into  Thessaly.  He  first  ravaged 
the  country  of  the  Oetaeans,  recovering  much  of  the  booty  that 
they  had  in  their  recent  conflicts  taken  from  the  Heracleots,  and 
exacting  in  addition  a heavy  indemnity  from  them.  For  the 
farther  protection  of  Heraclea  he  compelled  the  Phthiot  Achaeans 
and  other  southern  Thessalians  to  give  hostages  and  to  pay  trib- 
ute in  money ; and  while  the  remaining  Thessalians  blamed 
their  conduct  they  were  unable  to  resist.  The  hostages  were  sent 
to  Corinth  and  influence  was  brought  upon  them  to  enter  the 
Lacedaemonian  alliance  2 ; and  the  Achaeans  seem  to  have  yielded, 
for  three  years  later  they  were  found  upon  the  side  of  the  He- 
racleots against  the  Achaeans.  However  an  unwilling  ally  is 
worse  than  no  ally  at  all,  as  the  Heracleots  learned  to  their  cost. 
Belying  upon  them,  they  made  ready  to  war  upon  the  Oetaeans  ; 

§15.  2.  Time.  Y 12  sq.,  14  1. 

§ 16.  1.  Thuc.  V 51,  52  1 ; Diod.  XII  77  4. 

§16.  2.  Thuc.  VIII  3 1. 


MISCELLANEOUS  EVENTS. 


15 


but  when  they  were  all  arrayed  for  battle,  the  Achaeans  betrayed 
them  and  700  Heracleots  fell,  including  Labotas  the  harmost 
from  Lacedaemon.3 

§ 17.  Here  closes  this  period  in  the  history  of  Thessaly ; for 
the  next  event  of  which  we  hear  concerns  Lycophron  of  Pherae, 
and  with  it  the  eventful  epoch  of  the  tyrants  of  Pherae  is  begun. 
But  we  may  mention  certain  other  events  occurring  in  Thessaly 
during  the  Peloponnesian  war,  known  only  from  casual  references. 
Amynias  was  sent  as  ambassador  to  that  country  shortly  before 
422 1 ; possibly  to  oppose  Brasidas’  passage.  Andocides  also 
went  on  an  embassy  to  that  country,  and  was  accused  of  making 
trouble  there.2  During  the  time  of  the  Peloponnesian  war  must 
have  taken  place  the  hospitable  entertainment  of  the  sophist  Gorgias 
of  Leontini  by  the  Aleuad  Aristippus,  who,  as  well  as  the  other 
Thessalians,  was  much  taken  with  the  new  learning.3  In  406 
Critias,  the  Athenian  tyrant,  known  favorably  in  Thessaly  as  a 
teacher  of  sophistic  learning,  tried  to  stir  up  the  penestae  against 
their  masters,  being  assisted  in  this  by  one  Prometheus.4  Euryl- 
ochus,  an  Aleuad  of  Larissa,  and  Scopas  of  Crannon  both  unsuc- 
cessfully invited  Socrates  to  make  his  home  with  them.5  Scopas 
also  sent  a valuable  necklace  as  a present  to  Cyrus  the  Younger.6 

§ 16.  3.  Xen.  Hell.  I 2 18.  These  Achaeans  are  generally  supposed  to  have 
been  the  Achaeans  who  were  excluded  from  participation  in  the  founding  of  the 
city  ; and  it  is  assumed  that  they  were  later  admitted  to  the  rights  of  citizenship. 
This  assumption  is  purely  gratuitous,  and  in  any  case  the  defection  of  a slight 
incoming  element  could  hardly  have  produced  such  a serious  effect  upon  the  for- 
tunes of  the  battle.  Cf.  Thirl  wall  Hist.  Greece  IV  95  and  note. 

§17.  1.  Aristoph.  Vespae  1270-1274 ; Eupolis  fr.  209  Kock  ap.  Schol.  Aris- 
toph.  Vesp.  1271 ; Harwardt  de  irrision.  II  12;  Starkie  ad  Aristoph.  Vesp.  74. 

§ 17.  2.  Andoc.  IV  41  ; Lysias  VI  6. 

§ 17.  3.  Isoc.  XV  155  ; Plato  Meno  70  AB;  Cic.  Orat.  176  ; Philost.  Vit. 
Soph,  i (Gorg.)  p.203,  xvi  (Crit.)  p.  213,  Ep.  p.  364. 

§ 17.  4.  Philost.  Vit.  Soph,  xvi  (Crit.)  p.  213  ; Xen.  Hell.  II  3 36. 

§ 17.  5.  Diog.  Laert.  II  25. 

§ 17.  6.  Aelian.  Var.  Hist.  XII 1. 


APPENDIX  I. 


The  Ruling  Families  of  Pharsalus. 

§ 1.  Of  Pharsalus  we  learn  that  it  was  ruled  by  an  oligarchy, 
which  however  governed  the  dependent  territories  and  cities 
wisely  and  thus  maintained  their  city’s  leadership  unassailed.1 
The  city  also  had  an  excellent  law  requiring  any  citizen  to  assist 
the  officials  with  his  counsel  if  called  upon.2  Just  who  the 
oligarchs  were  has  however  been  rather  obscure.  We  shall 
endeavor  to  show  that  there  were  three  lines,  the  Echecratid,  the 
Daochid  and  the  Menonid  families. 

§ 2.  The  earliest  Echecratidas  is  the  Larissaean  who  dedicated 
at  Delphi  a small  Apollo,  which  was  reputed  to  be  earlier  than 
any  of  the  other  votive  offerings  1 — hence  earlier  than  those  of 
Solon  and  of  Croesus.  It  was  probably  his  grandson  of  the 
same  name  who  was  the  husband  of  Dyseris  and  father  of  the 
wealthy  Antiochus.2  Echecratia,  wife  of  Creon  and  mother  of 
the  second  Scopas,3  was,  if  we  may  judge  from  chronology  and 
name,  a sister  of  the  second  Echecratidas.  Antiochus  ruled  for 
thirty  years  in  Pharsalus,  part  of  which  time  he  was  tagus  of 
Thessaly.  He  hospitably  entertained  the  poets  Simonidas  and 
Anacreon.  As  he  thus  represented  the  main  power  in  the  country, 
he  was  visited  by  the  celebrated  Ionian  hetaera  Thargelia,  who  en- 
deavored to  make  him  friendly  toward  the  Persians.4  He  died  how- 
ever before  their  coming,  and  the  office  of  tagus  was  transferred  to 
the  Larissaean  Thorax.  After  the  campaign  of  Leotychidas,  the 
Pharsalian  Echecratidas  (third  of  the  name)  son  of  Antiochus  was 

§ 1.  1.  Aristot.  Pol.  Y 5 7 p.  1306a  ; Xen.  Hell.  VI 1 8. 

§ 1.  2.  Plato  Sisyphus  387  B. 

§ 2.  1.  Paus.  X 16  8. 

§ 2.  2.  Simonides  48  Schneidewin  apud  Ael.  Arist.  p.  127  D ; Anacreon  103, 
109  Bergk  ; Schol.  Theoc.  XVI  34. 

§ 2.  3.  Schol.  Theoc.  XVI  36. 

§ 2.  4.  Theoc.  XVI  34  et  Sch. ; Simonides  48  Schneidewin  apud  Ael.  Arist. 
p.  127  D;  Phot.  s.  v.  Thargelia ; Plut.  Pericl.  24  ; Philost.  Ep.  p.  364. 

16 


THE  ECHECRATIDS. 


17 


chosen  tagus,  but  his  son  Orestes  was  banished  from  home  about 
454.  The  Athenians  unsuccessfully  attempted  to  restore  him.5 

This  is  the  story  of  the  Aleuads  of  Pharsalus,  as  it  is  generally 
accepted ; but  there  are  in  it  some  difficulties  which  many  his- 
torians fail  to  notice.  If  we  reckon  back  from  the  known  date  of 
Orestes  and  from  the  approximate  date  given  by  the  relations  of 
Antiochus  with  Anacreon  and  Simonides,  the  second  Echecratidas 
would  come  about  560-540,  and  the  first  one  about  620.  Yet 
Echecratidas  I.  is  a Larissaean,  and  the  only  connection  of  the 
family  with  Pharsalus  is  that  implied  by  the  campaign  of  Myron- 
ides  against  Pharsalus.  The  statement  of  Quintilian  6 that  he  was 
uncertain  whether  the  scene  of  the  calamity  of  the  Scopadae  was 
Crannon  or  Pharsalus  is  entirely  irrelevant.  In  fact,  the  manner 
in  which  Theocritus 7 groups  Antiochus  and  Aleuas  together,  and 
speaks  of  the  Scopadae  of  Crannon  separately,  would  of  itself  give 
the  impression  that  Antiochus  was  a native  of  Larissa.  Thus  all 
depends  upon  the  Thucydidean  account  of  Orestes,  without  which 
no  one  would  ever  have  thought  of  connecting  the  Echecratids 
with  Pharsalus.  It  is  certain  that  there  were  rival  factions  at 
Larissa  as  early  as  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century,  for  Simus, 
father  of  Aleuas  and  grandfather  of  Thorax,  hired  foreign  guards 
on  account  of  such  troubles.8  Does  it  not  seem  likely  then  that 
the  expulsion  of  Orestes  was  a culmination  of  such  dissensions  ? 
But  why  then  did  Myronides  not  direct  his  army  upon  Larissa,  if 
Orestes  was  exiled  from  that  city  and  not  from  Pharsalus  ? The 
military  science  of  his  day  would  have  permitted  him  to  leave 

§2.  5.  Thuc.  I 111  1. 

§ 2.  6.  XI  2 14  ; cf.  Chapter  III  § 7 n.l  above.  [Viz.  : § 7.  1.  Callim. 
Epig.  64  3-6  ; Cic.  de  Orat.  II  352  sq.  ; Val.  Max.  I 8 ext.  7 ; Quint.  XI  2 
11-16  ; Phaed.  Fab.  IV  25  ; Ovid.  Ibis  511  sq.  Quint.  XI  2 14  says  that 
Apollodorus,  Eratosthenes,  Euphorion  and  Eurypylus  of  Larissa  all  placed  the 
disaster  at  Pharsalus  ; that  Apollas  and  Callimachus  placed  it  at  Crannon  ; and 
that  the  latter  version  gained  currency  merely  through  the  fact  that  Cicero 
adopted  it  in  preference  to  the  former.  However  Herod.  VI 127  and  Theoc. 
XVI  36-39  place  the  seat  of  power  of  the  Scopadae  at  Crannon,  and  while  there 
is  a possibility  that  the  Scopadae  ruled  also  at  Pharsalus,  the  view  is  generally 
adopted  that  the  Scopadae  ruled  at  Crannon  alone  and  that  the  Echecratids  were 
in  power  at  Pharsalus.  Cf.  Appendix  I.] 

§ 2.  7.  XVI  34-39. 

§ 2.  8.  Aristot.  Pol.  V 5 9 p.  1306a. 


18 


HISTORY  OF  THESSALY. 


Pharsalus  untaken  in  his  rear  and  to  advance  upon  Larissa.  It 
seems  therefore  that  we  must  accept  Orestes  and  his  father  as 
Pharsalians  ; and  as  Theocritus  in  the  passage  mentioned  does  not 
compel  us  to  place  Antiochus  in  the  same  city  as  Aleuas,  we  may 
carry  the  establishment  of  the  line  in  that  city  back  to  the  second 
Echecratidas.  Probably  this  one,  who  would  be  contemporary 
with  Simus,  was  expelled  by  the  latter  from  Larissa  when  the 
factional  troubles  became  sharp  ; but  by  previous  friendly  rela- 
tions with  Pharsalus  he  was  able  to  take  up  his  abode  there,  and 
to  become  the  leader  in  the  city.  Removal  from  sight  probably 
worked  an  improvement  in  the  relations  of  the  Aleuad  lines,  for 
both  Echecratids  and  Larissaean  Aleuads  were  on  friendly  terms 
with  Athens  ; but  the  factions  in  Larissa  evidently  continued  to 
exist,9  or  a new  split  in  the  family  occurred  at  a later  date. 

The  genealogical  tree  of  this  family  has  already  been  given  as 
that  of  one  branch  of  the  Aleudae.10 

§ 3.  The  second  family 1 is  that  which  began  with  Acnonius  son 
of  Aparus.  He  was  tetrarch  of  Thessaliotis,  and  had  three  sons, 
Hagias,  Telemachus  and  Agelaus,  all  famous  athletes.  Hag^s* 
son  was  Daochus  (I.),  whose  election  as  archon  of  Thessaly 


§ 2.  9.  Thuc.  II  22  3. 

§ 2.  10.  Cap.  II  § 4.  Here  repeated  : 

Echecratidas  I 
620 

Larissaeus 


(Pharsalus) 


(Crannon) 

Scopas  I 
| 580 


Echecratidas  II  Echecratia  m.  Creon  Diactorides 
560-540  _ 560-540 

m.  Dyseris 


Antiochus  520-490 
I (Thargelia) 


Scopas  II 
i 520-500 


Echecratidas  III 
I 475-457 


Orestes  457-453 


Scopas  III 
410-400 

§3.  1.  Homolle  in  BCH.  XXI  (1897)  592-598,  XXIII  (1899)  421-485; 
Preuner  ein  delphischer  Weihgeschenk  ; Michel  Recueil  1281. 


THE  DAOCHIDS. 


19 


s 


brought  the  Thessalians  to  a neutral  position  in  the  Peloponne- 
sian war.  It  was  to  him  that  Brasidas  sent  envoys  asking  free 
passage  through  Thessaly.2  At  his  death  Lycophron  of  Pherae 
rose  into  prominence.3  Daochus’  son  Sisyphus  (I.)  “ never  fled 
the  foe  nor  received  a wound  possibly  it  was  he  who  gave  the 
name  to  the  spurious  Platonic  dialogue.  We  hear  of  one  Athe- 
naeus  of  Eretria  who  was  his  servant  and  flatterer.4  Agelaus, 
probably  grandson  of  the  athlete,  was  archon  of  the  Thessalian 
federation  in  361/0  and  contracted  an  alliance  with  the  Athenians 
against  Alexander  of  Pherae.5  Daochus  (II.),  son  of  Sisyphus  I., 
was  the  tool  and  minion  of  Philip  of  Macedonia,  and  aided  in 
bringing  Thessaly  under  his  power.  By  his  favor  Daochus  became 
tetrarch ; and  he  was  one  of  Philip’s  ambassadors  to  Thebes  in 
338.  He  was  also  a proxenus  of  the  Anaphaeans.6  He  erected 
at  Pharsalus  a group  of  eight  figures,  representing  himself  and 
members  of  his  family,  in  commemoration  of  their  exploits.  The 
figures  were  of  bronze  and  were  the  work  of  Lysippus.  A marble 
replica  of  the  group  was  set  up  at  Delphi,  where  it  was  found  by 
the  French  excavators,  along  with  eight  inscriptions,  which  give 
us  the  greater  part  of  our  information  about  this  family.  Sisy- 
phus (II.)  was  the  son  of  Daochus  II. 

The  Daochid  line  is  therefore  composed  of  the  following  mem- 
bers : 


Hagias 

I 

Daochus  431-404 
Sisyphus 
Daochus  452-438 

. I 

Sisyphus 


Aparus 

Acnonius  457-453 

1 

Telemachus 


Agelaus 


Agelaus  361/0 


§3.  2.  Thuc.  IV  78  1.  §3.  Xen.  Hell.  113  4. 

§ 3.  4.  Theop.  20  apud  Athen.  252  F. 

§3.  5.  Kohler  in  Ath.  Mitt.  II  (1877)  197-213,  291. 

§ 3.  6.  Plut.  Demos.  18 ; Harpoc.  s.  v.  ; Polyb.  XVII  14  4 : Demos.  XVIII 
295  ; CIGIns.  Ill  251. 


20 


HISTORY  OF  THESSALY. 


§ 4.  That  fractional  dissensions  existed  in  Pharsalus  long  after 
the  expulsion  of  the  Echecratids  is  shown  by  the  seizure  of  the 
place  by  Medius  and  the  subsequent  massacre  of  the  mercenaries 
whom  he  left  there,  as  well  as  by  the  express  statement  of  Xeno- 
phon.1 From  this  we  are  enabled  to  posit  another  powerful 
family  in  the  city.  We  find  this  in  the  line  of  Menons  and 
Thucydidae. 

In  431  the  Pharsalian  detachment  in  the  Thessalian  force  sent 
to  the  assistance  of  Athens  was  led  by  a Menon.2  Another 
Menon  of  Pharsalus  led  the  Thessalians  in  the  Lamian  war  (323- 
321),  and  fell  in  the  final  conflict;  his  daughter  Phthia  became 
the  wife  of  the  Epirot  king  Aeacides  and  the  mother  of  Pyrrhus.3 
Marcellinus,4  quoting  from  the  De  Arce  of  Polemon,  mentions  a 
Thucydides  of  Pharsalus,  whose  father’s  name  was  Menon.  The 
Menon  here  mentioned  would  probably  be  the  most  famous  of 
that  name  in  that  city,  namely  the  one  who  fell  in  the  Lamian 
war.  From  this  another  Thucydides  of  Pharsalus  may  be  brought 
into  the  family,  who  was  an  Athenian  proxenus  and  helped  quell 
a riot  at  Athens  in  the  year  411. 5 He  would  be  the  son  of  the 
Menon  first  mentioned.  • From  Demosthenes6  we  learn  that  a 
Menon  of  Pharsalus  took  the  field  with  300  of  his  penestae,  whom 
he  himself  equipped,  and  with  these  aided  the  Athenians  under' 
Cimon  in  the  operations  against  Eion.  This  may  be  the  grand- 
father of  the  Menon  of  the  year  431.  Still  another  is  the  Menon 
who  led  the  Thessalian  troops  of  Cyrus.  Diodorus 7 says  that  he 
was  a Larissaean,  but  from  Xenophon 8 it  is  evident  that  he  was  a 
free  lance,  and  he  probably  was  merely  a commander  of  merce- 
naries who  had  drifted  to  Larissa  and  there  remained  so  long  that 
he  came  to  be  spoken  of  as  a native  of  the  place.  His  age  would 

§ 4.  1.  Diod.  XIY  82  5 sq.  ; Aristot.  Anim.  Hist.  IX  31  ; Xen.  Hell.  VI 

1 2. 

§4.  2.  Thuc.  II  22  3. 

§4.  3.  Diod.  XVIII  15  4,  17  6,  38  5 sq. ; Plut.  Pyrrh.  1,  Phoc.  25. 

§ 4.  4.  Vita  Thuc.  28. 

§ 4.  5.  Thuc.  VIII  92  8. 

§ 4.  6.  Demos.  XIII  23,  XXIII  199. 

§ 4.  7.  XIV  19  8. 

§ 4.  8.  Anab.  I sq.  passim  ; v.  et  Appendix  IV. 


THE  MENONIDS. 


21 


indicate  that  he  was,  if  of  the  Pharsalian  family,  a brother  of 
the  Athenian  proxenus  Thucydides. 

The  Menonid  line  is  thus  composed : 

Menon  476 


Menon  431 

! 

l i 

Thucydides  411  Menon  401-400 


Menon  323-321 


Thucydides  Phthia  m.  Aeacides 


Pyrrhus 


APPENDIX  II. 


The  Relations  Between  Thessaly  ’and  Athens. 

§ 1.  It  has  been  generally  supposed  that  the  Athenians  and  the 
common  people  of  Thessaly  were  in  sympathy  with  each  other, 
while  the  aristocratic  families  were  on  good  terms  with  Sparta. 
This  mistaken  idea  has  led  even  Busolt  into  certain  evident  incon- 
sistencies. In  speaking  of  the  treaty  of  Athens  and  Argos  with 
the  Thessalians  in  462,  he  says : “ Darauf  schlossen  diese  beiden 
Staaten  noch  gemeinsam  ein  auf  denselben  Bedingungen  beruhendes 
Bundnis  mit  den  Thessalern  ab,  unter  denen  namentlich  die 
machtigen  Aleuaden,  wegen  des  Feldzuges  des  Leotychidas  den 
Lakedaimoniern  grollten.”  1 This  statement,  which  is  perfectly 
justified,  he  at  once  proceeds  to  contradict  in  a footnote  on  the 
same  page  : “ Auch  mit  dem  Fiirstenhause  von  Pharsalos  unter- 
hielten  die  Athener  nahere  Beziehungen.  Thuk.  I,  111.  Der 
ritterschaftliche  Adel  war  lakonisch  gesinnt,  wahrend  die  demo- 
kratische  Volksmenge  mit  den  Athenern  sympathisierte  (Thuk. 
I,  107,  7 ; IV,  78,  3 ; Xen.  Hell.  II,  3,  36).”  Yet  if  the 
“ Furstenhaus  von  Pharsalos  ” and  the  Aleuadae  were  not  part  and 
parcel  of  “ der  ritterschaftliche  Adel,”  it  would  be  hard  to  find 
aristocrats  anywhere ; and  it  is  exceedingly  questionable  if  any 
truly  democratic  party  existed  in  Thessaly  at  that  time.  We  may 
note  in  passing  that  of  the  three  passages  cited  at  the  end  of  the 
extract  only  the  second  really  bears  upon  the  point : it  will  be 
discussed  later.  A few  pages  farther  on,  Busolt 2 says  : “ Der 
lakonerfreundliche  Adel  hatte  dort  die  Oberhand  gewonnen  und 
auch  den  pharsalischen  Fursten  Orestes,  Sohn  des  Thessaler- 
Konigs  Echecratidas,  vertrieben.”  This  sentence  either  contains 
within  itself  the  same  inconsistency  or  is  in  contradiction  with  his 
previous  statements. 

§1.  1.  Busolt  III2 1 pp.  297  sq. 

§ 1.  2.  IIP  1 p.  332. 


22 


THESSALO-ATHENIAN  RELATIONS. 


23 


§ 2.  Let  us  now  consider  what  alliances  and  enmities  there 
were  between  the  Athenians  and  the  Pharsalians.  Passing  over 
the  legendary  friendship  of  Theseus  and  Pirithous,  we  come  to 
the  alliance  of  the  Pisistratids  with  the  Aleuadae,  and  to  the  aid 
received  by  Hippias  from  Cineas  and  his  cavalry.1  Here  was  an 
alliance  of  tyrant  and  aristocratic  family  — and  it  was  exercised 
against  Sparta.  After  the  Persian  wars  it  was  the  Lacedaemo- 
nians who  tried  to  punish  the  Aleuads  for  medizing,  while  the 
Athenians,  whose  enmity  to  Sparta  was  growing,  had  some 
thoughts  of  cutting  off  the  return  of  the  Lacedaemonians  from 
Thessaly.2  Thus  while  Sparta  won  the  gratitude  of  those  not  in 
power,  she  earned  the  hatred  of  the  ruling  element,  and  but  a 
short  time  later  Menon  of  Pharsalus,  clearly  a wealthy  aristocrat, 
aided  the  Athenians  at  Eion.3  When  the  breach  between  Athens 
and  Sparta  widened,  Athens  secured  the  alliance  of  the  Aleuads 
of  Larissa  and  Pharsalus,  who  still  remembered  the  campaign  of 
Leotychidas.  The  appearance  of  a new  element,  viz.  of  the 
Daochid  Acnonius,  brought  about  a change  in  affairs.  Acnonius 
was  the  opponent  of  the  Echecratid  line,  hence  hostile  to  Athens. 
To  his  charge  may  be  laid  the  treachery  of  the  Thessalian  cavalry 
at  Tanagra  and  the  expulsion  of  the  Aleuad  Orestes,  whom  Athens 
vainly  tried  to  restore.4 

§ 3.  When  in  431  the  Thessalian  cities  sent  aid  to  Athens,1 
Polymedes  and  Aristonous,  Aleuads  of  Larissa,  led  the  troops  of 
their  own  city,  and  Menon  led  the  Pharsalians  ; Pagasae,  Crannon, 
Gyrton  and  Pherae  all  were  cities  of  Pelasgiotis,  dominated  by 
Larissa,  and  Piresiae,  the  only  other  city  taking  part  in  the  cam- 
paign, lay  on  the  borderland  between  the  territories  of  Larissa 
and  of  Pharsalus,  and  evidently  followed  the  lead  of  one  or  of 
the  other.  Again  it  is  the  Aleuads  who  are  friendly  to  Athens  ; 
the  Menonids  of  Pharsalus  we  have  already  seen  to  be  on  good 
terms  with  that  city.  But  the  election  of  Daochus  as  archon  2 

§2.  1.  Y.  Cap.  Ill  §4,  §6. 

§ 2.  2.  Y.  p.  2 supra. 

§ 2.  3.  Y.  p.  3 supra. 

§ 2.  4.  Y.  pp.  6 sq.  supra. 

§ 3.  1.  Thuc.  II  22. 

§ 3.  2.  Y.  pp.  9 sq.  supra. 


24 


HISTORY  OF  THESSALY. 


put  an  end  to  any  alliance  between  Athens  and  Thessaly.  Dao- 
chus  was  the  grandson  of  Acnonius,  whom  Athens  had  fought 
some  twenty  years  before,  and  was  hostile  to  that  city.  Yet  the 
presence  of  two  factions  in  Thessaly  prevented  him  from  taking 
active  part  in  the  war ; he  sought  rather  to  preserve  the  pros- 
perity of  his  country  and  keep  the  war,  raging  among  the  other 
Greeks,  from  entering  within  the  limits  of  his  country.  But  when 
the  Lacedaemonians  founded  Heracl6a  Trachinia,  it  was  a patent 
trespass  upon  the  lands  of  the  Thessalian  league,  and  a local  war 
ensued,  partly  from  this  cause  and  partly  as  a continuation  of  the 
old  war  between  the  Trachinians  and  the  Oetaeans  3 ; it  is  entirely 
apart  from  the  current  of  the  Peloponnesian  war. 

On  account  of  these  local  troubles  Brasidas  considered  it  doubt- 
ful whether  he  would  be  allowed  to  cross  the  country ; but  he 
sent  a messenger  on  to  Pharsalus  to  ask  permission.  After  the 
matter  of  Heraclea  sentiment  was  strong  against  permitting  any 
passage  of  armed  forces  through  the  land,  and  the  request  was 
refused.  When  Brasidas  advanced  he  was  met  by  force ; yet 
when  he  declared  that  he  came  as  a friend  to  the  Thessalians, 
and  as  an  enemy  only  to  Athens,  and  that  the  Thessalians  and 
the  Lacedaemonians  were  at  peace  and  there  was  no  reason  why 
they  should  not  use  each  other’s  lands  for  peaceful  purposes,  the 
resistance  dispersed  and  he  marched  on  to  Macedonia.4  From 
this  it  is  clear  that  there  was  no  alliance  of  any  kind  between 
the  Athenians  and  the  Thessalians  at  that  time;  for  had  there 
been,  Brasidas*  open  avowal  of  hostility  to  the  Athenians  would 
have  been  equivalent  to  a declaration  of  war  upon  the  Thessalians, 
as  treaties  in  those  days  regularly  included  an  express  mention  of 
the  allies  of  both  parties,  making  an  attack  upon  any  one  an 
aggression  against  all.  Niconidas  of  Larissa,  Brasidas*  guide,  was 
probably  an  Aleuad ; why  he,  being  of  a family  friendly  to  Athens, 
should  act  in  that  capacity  is  not  clear.  He  was  however  a friend 
to  Perdiccas,  to  whom  Brasidas  wished  to  go  ; and  it  is  noticeable 
that  he  did  not  enter  very  heartily  into  his  task,  for  as  soon  as 

§3.  3.  Y.  pp.  11  sq.,  14  supra. 

§3.  4.  Thuc.  IV  78  ; v.  pp.  12  sq.  supra. 


THESSALO-ATHENIAN  RELATIONS. 


25 


the  way  was  blocked  he  declared  that  he  could  not  and  would  not 
lead  him  farther.  The  opposition  to  Rhamphias  some  years  later 5 
may  be  traced  to  the  uneasiness  produced  by  the  founding  of 
Heraclea  and  to  the  desire  to  keep  aloof  from  the  war. 

§ 4.  Certain  other  events  throw  little  if  any  light  on  the  rela- 
tions of  Athens  and  Thessaly  at  this  time.  The  Thessalians 
were  terrified  at  the  advance  of  the  Athenian  ally  Sitalces  of 
Thrace  and  rose  in  arms  to  resist  him  1 ; but  even  if  they  had 
been  in  alliance  with  the  Athenians  they  could  not  have  relied 
upon  the  latter  to  retrain  such  a totally  irresponsible  party  as  the 
Thracian  king.  Both  Andocides  and  Amynias  were  sent  on  em- 
bassies to  Thessaly,2  but  the  purpose  of  their  missions  is  unknown. 
The  tyrant  Critias  tried  to  cause  an  uprising  among  the  penestae,3 
but  he  was  anything  rather  than  a democrat,  and  his  doings  can- 
not be  taken  to  indicate  any  relations  between  the  democracies 
of  the  two  countries.  On  this  point  F.  Pahle 4 says  : “ grund 
hierzu  fur  Kritias  war  wol  der,  dasz  der  thessalische  adel  mit  der 
athenischen  demokratie  verbundet  war  und  er  also  als  oligarch 
dessen  macht  gebrochen  zu  sehen  wunschte.  solcher  landesverrath 
war  ja  am  schlusz  des  peloponnesischen  krieges  von  seiten  der 
athenischen  oligarchic  ganz  an  der  tagesordnung.”  Herein, 
while  he  refers  to  an  alliance  which  did  not  at  that  time  exist,  he 
takes  the  correct  view  of  Thessalo-Athenian  relations  in  general. 
A campaign  of  Astyphilus  into  Thessaly  at  some  time  shortly 
after  the  Corinthian  war 5 gives  no  light,  as  it  is  unkown  in  whose 
favor  it  was  undertaken. 

§ 5.  Political  conditions  changed  rapidly  between  404  and 
375.  The  next  relations  of  Athens  with  Thessaly  are  the  alli- 
ances with  the  tyrant  Jason  in  373,1  and  again  with  the  tyrant 

§ 3.  5.  V.  p.  13  supra. 

§ 4.  1.  V.  p.  10  supra. 

§ 4.  2.  V.  p.  15  supra. 

§ 4,  3.  Xen.  Hell.  II  3 36. 

§4.  4.  In  Fleckeisen’s  Jrb.  f.  klass.  Phil.  XII  (1866)  531  n.  2. 

§ 4.  5.  Isaeus  IX  14. 

§5.  1.  V.  Cap.  VI  §§  11  sq.  [References:  Xen.  Hell.  VI  1 10-12; 
Schafer  Demos,  u.  s.  Zeit  I2  58,  62  ; Kohler  in  Hermes  V (1871)  8-10  ; CIA.  II 
88  ; Demos.  XLIX  10,  22,  24,  31,  62 ; Nepos  Timoth.  4 2 sq.] 


26 


HISTORY  OF  THESSALY. 


Alexander  in  368,2  the  latter  directed  notably  against  the  other 
Thessalians  and  their  allies  the  Thebans.  Here  is  a clear  case  of 
alliance  with  the  oligarchic  party,  nay  even  with  the  house  of 
tyrants.  However,  the  aggressions  of  Alexander  upon  Peparethus 
caused  the  Athenians  to  unite  with  the  Thessalian  league,  at  whose 
head  then  stood  the  Daochid  Agelaus.3  But  soon  they  parted ; 
and  opposition  to  the  Pheraeans  united  the  Daochids  and  the 
Aleuads,  who  bowed  to  Philip,  aided  him  in  the  expulsion  of  the 
last  of  the  tyrants  of  Pherae,  and  brought  Thessaly  into  his 
power.  In  the  Second  Sacred  War  Athens,  Sparta  and  Phocis 
fought  the  Thessalians,  the  Boeotians  and  Philip.  In  338  the 
Thessalians  were  eager  to  take  the  field  against  Athens 4 ; and  a 
great  battle  took  place  at  Chaeronea,  where  Philip’s  forces  routed 
the  Athenians  and  their  allies.  Later  the  Thessalians  under 
command  of  Menon  joined  the  Athenians  and  others  in  the 
Lamian  war,  323-321. 

In  all  this  we  see  that  the  Aleuad  family,  in  its  various  branches, 
and  the  Menon  ids  of  Pharsalus  were  consistently  on  good  terms 
with  Athens.  On  the  other  hand  the  Daochids  of  Pharsalus  were 
opposed  to  that  city.  This  is  true  to  the  greatest  degree  down 
to  the  end  of  the  fifth  century,  while  in  the  fourth  the  events  of 
the  time  had  more  effect  upon  their  relations. 

§ 6.  There  remains  to  be  considered  the  one  passage  that  lends 
color  to  the  belief  that  it  was  the  democratic  or  popular  element 
in  Thessaly  that  allied  itself  with  the  Athenians.  Thucydides 
IV  78  2 sq.  says,  in  reference  to  Brasidas’  desire  to  traverse 
Thessaly,  u xai  zo7<;  nda'i  ye  opoiax;  " EXXqoiv  utlotitov  xaQetazrjxet 
zvjv  T(bv  tieXoh ; [j.rj  izetaouzac,  dccevar  zo7<. ~ re  ’ AOyvcuoec  alet  noze  to 
7tXrj0o<z  zcov  6e<j(jaXd)v  euvoov  bnr^pyev.  ware  ec  prj  duvaaze'ta  paX- 
Xou  7]  toovopia  i%pah>zo  to  eyy^ooptov  of  SeaaaXo'i , oux  av  noze 
TiporjXdev”  “ The  traversing  of  one’s  neighbors’  lands  without  per- 

§5.  2.  V.  Cap.  VI  §24.  [References:  Demos.  XXIII  120;  Diod.  XV 
71  3 ; Harpoc.  s.  v.  Alexander  ; Ephippus  fr.  1 Kock  ap*  Athen.  112  F ; 
Kohler  in  Ath.  Mitt.  II  (1877)  291 ; Plut.  Pelop.  31,  Mor.  193  DE.] 

§ 5.  3.  V.  Cap.  VI  §§  29-31.  [References  : Demos.  L 4,  LI  8 ; Xen. 
Hell.  V 4 35 ; Diod.  XV  95  1-3  ; Kohler  in  Ath.  Mitt.  II  (1877)  197-213, 
291 ; Polyaen.  VI  2 1-2.  ] 

§5.  4.  Aesch.  Ill  161. 


THESSALO- ATHENIAN  RELATIONS. 


27 


mission  was  a well  established  cause  of  suspicion  among  all  the 
Greeks  alike.  The  majority  of  the  Thessalians  was  ever  friendly  to 
the  Athenians  ; so  that  he  would  not  have  proceeded  had  not  the 
Thessalians  beenunder  an  illegally  usurped  government  rather  than 
under  a form  of  rule  constituted  legally  and  in  accordance  with  their 
local  custom.”  ' Iaovofiia  and  dovaazeia  are  here  merely  the  legal 
and  illegal  forms  of  bhyapyja, 1 the  normal  government  of  the  coun- 
try, and  the  7 iXrjd^ot;  must  be  the  majority  of  those  who  were  of  conse- 
quence and  possessed  the  franchise,  not  of  the  penestae  and  of  others 
who  had  no  voice  in  the  government.  Thus  it  was  a question  of 
oligarchic  factions  and  not  of  strife  between  the  aristocracy  and 
democracy,  for  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  there  existed  a 
true  democracy  in  Thessaly  at  that  time.  The  passage  therefore 
means  that  Brasidas  in  advancing  relied  upon  the  favor  of  Daochus, 
the  enemy  of  Athens,  and  that  Thucydides  regarded  Daochus  as 
having  gained  his  position  by  irregular  methods.  Yet  the  inscrip- 
tion at  Delphi 2 speaks  of  him  as  legally  elected,  and  as  ruling  in 
peace  and  prosperity.  Thucydides  seems  to  have  used  an  Aleuad 
source,  which  was  naturally  pro-Athenian  and  anti-Daochid.  The 
true  state  of  affairs  was  that  the  anti- Athenian  Daochus  had  been 
properly  elected  in  431  by  a majority  of  the  ruling  class,  and  that 
later  the  resentment  at  the  founding  of  HeracDa  had  caused  many 
to  go  over  to  the  other  party,  so  that  Daochus,  while  still  holding 
the  archonship,  was  now  the  representative  of  a minority  only. 
That  there  was  in  Thessaly  a true  democracy  which  befriended 
Athens,  while  the  noble  families  were  hostile  to  that  city  and  on 
Sparta’s  side,  is  an  untenable  position. 

§ 6.  1.  Cf.  Thuc.  Ill  62  3 ; Aristot.  Pol.  IV  5 6-8  p.  1293a. 

§6.  2.  Homolle  in  BCH.  XXI  (1897)  592-598  ; cf.  p.  9 supra. 


